Any experience with the TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di

OldNoob · 10-17-2013, 02:32 PM

Has anyone had experience with the TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di Lens?

vimeto · 10-17-2013, 07:40 PM - **1 Like**

I rented it for a wedding. It's an amazing lens overall. all my pictures came out beautiful. i bought the pentax DA* 50-135mm and while I love that lens, I think the tamron had a very small edge because of AF. the pentax hunts a lot on dark situations, while the tamron is quite snappy in comparison.

SpecialK · 10-17-2013, 08:10 PM

Lots of people have it. Big and heavy. Excellent IQ.

**jpzk** · 10-17-2013, 08:14 PM

If this is the "old" type (noisy and heavy ... ) yes! I do have one of those and it is possibly one of the sharpess less I own ... excruciatingly sharp, especially when taking "head shots" from a distance.

JP

JinDesu · 10-17-2013, 08:30 PM

Excellent image quality. Sharp as any prime at 70mm. Quite good at 200mm, beating out almost all other competitors.
AF is slow and hesitant sometimes on my k-x. Ok for portraiture and still photography. Hard to do sports. Can catch wildlife if they don't move towards or away from me. AF is also very noisy on my k-x.
Weight is reasonable - the Sigma and FA*80-200 are quite a bit heavier.
Hood is sexy as heck.
Manual focus/autofocus switch is stupidly designed.
Not great against flare - soso.
Amazing bokeh.

Click the links for fullsize samples:

120mm, F3.2, ISO100

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8482/8274096584_91572204d6_o.jpg

130mm, F3.2, ISO100
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8342/8268729892_1fb00b0cb4_o.jpg
^look at the sign "Walnut Street"

200mm, F4, ISO100
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/8012788258_de24229851_o.jpg

115mm, F2.8, ISO400
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8164/7695312122_a440ed64e3_o.jpg
^focus is on the body, look at his back

This is my favorite lens. My second favorite is my Sigma 50 F1.4. I can't imagine anything replacing my Tamron 70-200 F2.8 except a DA*60-250 F4 (specifically because I want WR).

OldNoob · 10-17-2013, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by JinDesu

Excellent image quality. Sharp as any prime at 70mm. Quite good at 200mm, beating out almost all other competitors.
AF is slow and hesitant sometimes on my k-x. Ok for portraiture and still photography. Hard to do sports. Can catch wildlife if they don't move towards or away from me. AF is also very noisy on my k-x.
Weight is reasonable - the Sigma and FA*80-200 are quite a bit heavier.
Hood is sexy as heck.
Manual focus/autofocus switch is stupidly designed.
Not great against flare - soso.
Amazing bokeh.

Click the links for fullsize samples:

120mm, F3.2, ISO100

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8482/8274096584_91572204d6_o.jpg

130mm, F3.2, ISO100
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8342/8268729892_1fb00b0cb4_o.jpg
^look at the sign "Walnut Street"

200mm, F4, ISO100
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/8012788258_de24229851_o.jpg

115mm, F2.8, ISO400
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8164/7695312122_a440ed64e3_o.jpg
^focus is on the body, look at his back

This is my favorite lens. My second favorite is my Sigma 50 F1.4. I can't imagine anything replacing my Tamron 70-200 F2.8 except a DA*60-250 F4 (specifically because I want WR).

The hair on that squirrels tail is amazingly sharp.

I think we caught the same squirrel LOL
All sizes | Sony a100 with 55-200mm kit lens | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

JinDesu · 10-17-2013, 09:41 PM

A very fat squirrel!

I love the lens from 70-150mm. From 150-200mm, it's not AS good, but is plenty good enough for what I shoot. The slow-ish AF and my k-x's weak AF accuracy means it can be hard to shoot at 200 F2.8 sometimes. Also, at closer focus distances, it seems to get softer (or the DOF is so small that my AF just sucks).

F2.8 200mm, ISO 320 - medium distance shot
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6746262195_b13ab6caa8_o.jpg

One caveat - my images have sharpening done to them in Lightroom. I try to balance my sharpening to get the maximum I can out of the image without having artifacts show. So the RAW images will be a bit softer than what I am showing - but the potential is still there.

OldNoob · 10-17-2013, 10:20 PM

Appreciate everyone's input. I got my eye on one.

Aegon · 10-20-2013, 10:21 AM - **2 Likes**

I like mine. Large lens, usually gets comments from other people at the park or wherever. "Are you a professional photographer?"

A little slow on AF, but generally fast enough. Really good value, I got mine used for 550.

OldNoob · 10-20-2013, 07:27 PM

That little roller coaster shot is great!

BeerBelly · 10-24-2013, 04:43 AM

Just to chime in my 2 cents here. I first got the lens when I had my K-r and it was brilliantly sharp at all focal lengths and apertures. When I bought my K30, I noticed that at 200mm and f2.8 it was a little soft. I needed to use at least f3.2 to get good sharpness. I then decided to switch to Nikon and wanted the same lens for my D7100. So I bought one and was sorely disappointed. It was soft at 200mm until f5.6. I think this lens hits the resolution limit quite soon. I'd say the APS-C 16Mpix sensor is the upper limit for it. If you decide to get a K-3 in the future be ready to be disappointed.

It also doesn't work well with a TC. The same TC that I had fantastic results using a DA*300 with, had awful IQ when used with the Tamron. Like I said...it has the IQ ceiling set quite low.

jsherman999 · 10-24-2013, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by BeerBelly

Just to chime in my 2 cents here. I first got the lens when I had my K-r and it was brilliantly sharp at all focal lengths and apertures. When I bought my K30, I noticed that at 200mm and f2.8 it was a little soft. I needed to use at least f3.2 to get good sharpness. I then decided to switch to Nikon and wanted the same lens for my D7100. So I bought one and was sorely disappointed. It was soft at 200mm until f5.6. I think this lens hits the resolution limit quite soon. I'd say the APS-C 16Mpix sensor is the upper limit for it. If you decide to get a K-3 in the future be ready to be disappointed.

.

Regarding the Nikon switch - If it was 'soft' up to f/5.6, I think you may have experienced sample variation, which we know from lensrentals data happens more than we realize.

Also, re your f/2.8 vs f/3.2 on Pentax, if an equivalently-sharp lens is really sharp at 12MP, it's sharp at 16MP or 24MP - the only way you would think it's softer is if you were pixel-peeping (or printing larger than before,) and then you're looking at a magnified image of the same performance, which isn't an accurate way to look at it. (think: a brutally sharp knife remains just as sharp if you look at it's blade edge with a magnifying glass, or a microscope. It doesn't look sharp at all in the microscope, though.)

At the same display sizes as before, a lens is going to look as sharp or sharper if you add megapixels, possibly even a bit more detailed/crisp if you're downsampling to get to those same display sizes.

Re the lens - fantastic optically, and a bargain at $750 or so.

.

OldNoob · 10-24-2013, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by BeerBelly

Just to chime in my 2 cents here. I first got the lens when I had my K-r and it was brilliantly sharp at all focal lengths and apertures. When I bought my K30, I noticed that at 200mm and f2.8 it was a little soft. I needed to use at least f3.2 to get good sharpness. I then decided to switch to Nikon and wanted the same lens for my D7100. So I bought one and was sorely disappointed. It was soft at 200mm until f5.6. I think this lens hits the resolution limit quite soon. I'd say the APS-C 16Mpix sensor is the upper limit for it. If you decide to get a K-3 in the future be ready to be disappointed.

It also doesn't work well with a TC. The same TC that I had fantastic results using a DA*300 with, had awful IQ when used with the Tamron. Like I said...it has the IQ ceiling set quite low.

So very often true. Used to get blazingly sharp images out of my 10MP Sony when i finally upgraded 15mp, all my lenses suddenly seemed soft. except for the Minolta 135mm f/2.8 XX it continued to be sharp.

jsherman999 · 10-24-2013, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by OldNoob

So very often true. Used to get blazingly sharp images out of my 10MP Sony when i finally upgraded 15mp, all my lenses suddenly seemed soft. except for the Minolta 135mm f/2.8 XX it continued to be sharp.

Sigh. It's an uphill battle. Carry on.

BeerBelly · 10-25-2013, 12:24 PM

@jsherman999: I'm not excluding the possibility that the sample I had for my Nikon cam was a bad one....but on the D90 it was sharp...on a D800 it again wasn't. All the tests show that the lens loses sharpness with higher resolution sensors. This is a dxo link where they tested zoom lenses with the D7100: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-24M-Pix-Nikon-D7100-Part-...-for-the-D7100. The version of the lens discussed here gets a 6 in sharpness, while the newer version (VC USD) gets a 16. It's like my own findings. I'm not trying to convince anyone into anything, just trying to help stating what I personally experienced.

K-r @ 200mm @ 2.8

K-30 @ 200mm @ 3.2 (same sharpness as above)

D7100 @ 200mm @ 2.8 (low contrast, aberrations, softness)

10-17-2013, 02:32 PM	#1
OldNoob Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 402	Any experience with the TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di Has anyone had experience with the TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di Lens?

10-25-2013, 12:24 PM	#15
BeerBelly Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 139	@jsherman999: I'm not excluding the possibility that the sample I had for my Nikon cam was a bad one....but on the D90 it was sharp...on a D800 it again wasn't. All the tests show that the lens loses sharpness with higher resolution sensors. This is a dxo link where they tested zoom lenses with the D7100: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-24M-Pix-Nikon-D7100-Part-...-for-the-D7100. The version of the lens discussed here gets a 6 in sharpness, while the newer version (VC USD) gets a 16. It's like my own findings. I'm not trying to convince anyone into anything, just trying to help stating what I personally experienced. K-r @ 200mm @ 2.8 K-30 @ 200mm @ 3.2 (same sharpness as above) D7100 @ 200mm @ 2.8 (low contrast, aberrations, softness) Last edited by BeerBelly; 10-25-2013 at 01:11 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tamron 70-200mm SP AF f/2.8 Di LD IF samples	Ash	Lens Sample Photo Archive	149	02-02-2022 06:23 PM
Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD	troenaas	Photographic Industry and Professionals	4	09-17-2012 06:07 AM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro	biglug	Sold Items	10	01-24-2012 04:45 PM
Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2,8 Di LD [IF] MACRO	adwb	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	08-12-2011 02:22 AM

10-17-2013, 07:40 PM - 1 Like	#2
vimeto Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: ct Photos: Gallery Posts: 146	I rented it for a wedding. It's an amazing lens overall. all my pictures came out beautiful. i bought the pentax DA* 50-135mm and while I love that lens, I think the tamron had a very small edge because of AF. the pentax hunts a lot on dark situations, while the tamron is quite snappy in comparison.

10-17-2013, 08:10 PM	#3
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Lots of people have it. Big and heavy. Excellent IQ.

10-17-2013, 08:14 PM	#4
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	If this is the "old" type (noisy and heavy ... ) yes! I do have one of those and it is possibly one of the sharpess less I own ... excruciatingly sharp, especially when taking "head shots" from a distance. JP

10-17-2013, 08:30 PM	#5
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Excellent image quality. Sharp as any prime at 70mm. Quite good at 200mm, beating out almost all other competitors. AF is slow and hesitant sometimes on my k-x. Ok for portraiture and still photography. Hard to do sports. Can catch wildlife if they don't move towards or away from me. AF is also very noisy on my k-x. Weight is reasonable - the Sigma and FA80-200 are quite a bit heavier. Hood is sexy as heck. Manual focus/autofocus switch is stupidly designed. Not great against flare - soso. Amazing bokeh. Click the links for fullsize samples: 120mm, F3.2, ISO100 http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8482/8274096584_91572204d6_o.jpg 130mm, F3.2, ISO100 http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8342/8268729892_1fb00b0cb4_o.jpg ^look at the sign "Walnut Street" 200mm, F4, ISO100 http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/8012788258_de24229851_o.jpg 115mm, F2.8, ISO400 http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8164/7695312122_a440ed64e3_o.jpg ^focus is on the body, look at his back This is my favorite lens. My second favorite is my Sigma 50 F1.4. I can't imagine anything replacing my Tamron 70-200 F2.8 except a DA60-250 F4 (specifically because I want WR).

10-17-2013, 09:26 PM	#6
OldNoob Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 402 Original Poster	Originally posted by JinDesu Excellent image quality. Sharp as any prime at 70mm. Quite good at 200mm, beating out almost all other competitors. AF is slow and hesitant sometimes on my k-x. Ok for portraiture and still photography. Hard to do sports. Can catch wildlife if they don't move towards or away from me. AF is also very noisy on my k-x. Weight is reasonable - the Sigma and FA80-200 are quite a bit heavier. Hood is sexy as heck. Manual focus/autofocus switch is stupidly designed. Not great against flare - soso. Amazing bokeh. Click the links for fullsize samples: 120mm, F3.2, ISO100 http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8482/8274096584_91572204d6_o.jpg 130mm, F3.2, ISO100 http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8342/8268729892_1fb00b0cb4_o.jpg ^look at the sign "Walnut Street" 200mm, F4, ISO100 http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/8012788258_de24229851_o.jpg 115mm, F2.8, ISO400 http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8164/7695312122_a440ed64e3_o.jpg ^focus is on the body, look at his back This is my favorite lens. My second favorite is my Sigma 50 F1.4. I can't imagine anything replacing my Tamron 70-200 F2.8 except a DA60-250 F4 (specifically because I want WR). The hair on that squirrels tail is amazingly sharp. I think we caught the same squirrel LOL All sizes \| Sony a100 with 55-200mm kit lens \| Flickr - Photo Sharing!

10-17-2013, 09:41 PM	#7
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	A very fat squirrel! I love the lens from 70-150mm. From 150-200mm, it's not AS good, but is plenty good enough for what I shoot. The slow-ish AF and my k-x's weak AF accuracy means it can be hard to shoot at 200 F2.8 sometimes. Also, at closer focus distances, it seems to get softer (or the DOF is so small that my AF just sucks). F2.8 200mm, ISO 320 - medium distance shot http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6746262195_b13ab6caa8_o.jpg One caveat - my images have sharpening done to them in Lightroom. I try to balance my sharpening to get the maximum I can out of the image without having artifacts show. So the RAW images will be a bit softer than what I am showing - but the potential is still there.

10-17-2013, 10:20 PM	#8
OldNoob Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 402 Original Poster	Appreciate everyone's input. I got my eye on one.

10-20-2013, 07:27 PM	#10
OldNoob Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 402 Original Poster	That little roller coaster shot is great!

10-24-2013, 04:43 AM	#11
BeerBelly Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 139	Just to chime in my 2 cents here. I first got the lens when I had my K-r and it was brilliantly sharp at all focal lengths and apertures. When I bought my K30, I noticed that at 200mm and f2.8 it was a little soft. I needed to use at least f3.2 to get good sharpness. I then decided to switch to Nikon and wanted the same lens for my D7100. So I bought one and was sorely disappointed. It was soft at 200mm until f5.6. I think this lens hits the resolution limit quite soon. I'd say the APS-C 16Mpix sensor is the upper limit for it. If you decide to get a K-3 in the future be ready to be disappointed. It also doesn't work well with a TC. The same TC that I had fantastic results using a DA*300 with, had awful IQ when used with the Tamron. Like I said...it has the IQ ceiling set quite low.

10-24-2013, 07:22 AM	#12
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by BeerBelly Just to chime in my 2 cents here. I first got the lens when I had my K-r and it was brilliantly sharp at all focal lengths and apertures. When I bought my K30, I noticed that at 200mm and f2.8 it was a little soft. I needed to use at least f3.2 to get good sharpness. I then decided to switch to Nikon and wanted the same lens for my D7100. So I bought one and was sorely disappointed. It was soft at 200mm until f5.6. I think this lens hits the resolution limit quite soon. I'd say the APS-C 16Mpix sensor is the upper limit for it. If you decide to get a K-3 in the future be ready to be disappointed. . Regarding the Nikon switch - If it was 'soft' up to f/5.6, I think you may have experienced sample variation, which we know from lensrentals data happens more than we realize. Also, re your f/2.8 vs f/3.2 on Pentax, if an equivalently-sharp lens is really sharp at 12MP, it's sharp at 16MP or 24MP - the only way you would think it's softer is if you were pixel-peeping (or printing larger than before,) and then you're looking at a magnified image of the same performance, which isn't an accurate way to look at it. (think: a brutally sharp knife remains just as sharp if you look at it's blade edge with a magnifying glass, or a microscope. It doesn't look sharp at all in the microscope, though.) At the same display sizes as before, a lens is going to look as sharp or sharper if you add megapixels, possibly even a bit more detailed/crisp if you're downsampling to get to those same display sizes. Re the lens - fantastic optically, and a bargain at $750 or so. .

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-24-2013, 07:23 AM	#13
OldNoob Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 402 Original Poster	Originally posted by BeerBelly Just to chime in my 2 cents here. I first got the lens when I had my K-r and it was brilliantly sharp at all focal lengths and apertures. When I bought my K30, I noticed that at 200mm and f2.8 it was a little soft. I needed to use at least f3.2 to get good sharpness. I then decided to switch to Nikon and wanted the same lens for my D7100. So I bought one and was sorely disappointed. It was soft at 200mm until f5.6. I think this lens hits the resolution limit quite soon. I'd say the APS-C 16Mpix sensor is the upper limit for it. If you decide to get a K-3 in the future be ready to be disappointed. It also doesn't work well with a TC. The same TC that I had fantastic results using a DA*300 with, had awful IQ when used with the Tamron. Like I said...it has the IQ ceiling set quite low. So very often true. Used to get blazingly sharp images out of my 10MP Sony when i finally upgraded 15mp, all my lenses suddenly seemed soft. except for the Minolta 135mm f/2.8 XX it continued to be sharp.

10-24-2013, 07:37 AM	#14
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by OldNoob So very often true. Used to get blazingly sharp images out of my 10MP Sony when i finally upgraded 15mp, all my lenses suddenly seemed soft. except for the Minolta 135mm f/2.8 XX it continued to be sharp. Sigh. It's an uphill battle. Carry on.